Observations on the Distribution of Certain Tobacco Smoke Components with Respect to Particle Size

Abstract

If the distribution of specific smoke components with respect to particle size were significantly different than the size distribution of particulate matter, a compound or group of compounds might be selectively removed by the selective filtration of a given particle size. Various techniques have been used to determine the particle size distribution of a few smoke components. Berner and Marek used a Goetz aerosol spectrometer to determine the size distribution of potassium in smoke; and Owen, Westcott and Woodman used a conifuge to examine the distribution of three smoke components. In the present work, a cascade impactor was used to separate smoke particles into four fractions of 0.25 to 1.0 µ in diameter based on the principle that particles in a moving airstream impact on a slide placed in their path, if their momentum is sufficient to overcome the drag exerted by the airstream. The particle size distribution of five organic compounds: indole, nicotine, diethyl phthalate, norphytene, and neophytadiene were determined. These size distributions were compared to the distribution of total particulate matter (TPM) and the following observations were made:1. All compounds were distributed in a pattern similar to that of TPM. Therefore, the selective filtration of a given compound by selective filtration of a given particle size is probably unfeasible.2. The concentrations of indole and nicotine were higher in the medium-size particles (0.5 to 0.75 µ) than in the small or large particles.3. It is known that cellulose acetate filters are more efficient for the filtration of small and large particles than they are for medium-size particles. Therefore, the high concentration of nicotine in the medium-size particles may contribute to the slightly higher filtration efficiency these filters have for the TPM than they have for nicotine.

Evolution of the Particle Size Distribution of Mainstream Cigarette Smoke During a Puff

“…Procedures which require aging of the smoke allow rapid coagulation to proceed while those involving dilution can cause particle evaporation. Testimony to the difficulty of the measurement is found in the wide range of average diameters reported in the literature for mainstream smoke; for example, Berner and Marek (1967), Carter and Hasegawa (1975), Hinds (1978), Holmberg (1979), Ishizu et al (1980), Keith and Derrick (1961), Keith (1982), Leonard and Kiefer (1972), McCusker et al (1981), Morie and Baggett (1977), Overton (1967), Phalen et al (1976), and Porstendorfer and Schraub (1972). In some cases, the smoke was not only aged and diluted, but the measurement was performed with an instrument with poor sensitivity for particles in the submicron range.…”

CSP Deposition to the Alveolar Region of the Lung: Implications of Cigarette Design

“…Additionally, the type of reported value also varies, lending to the overall confusion: CM(A)D and MM(A)D 3 measured in various studies since 1950 range from 0.09 to 1.3 μm, and from 0.21 to 0.96 μm, respectively. ( 30–64 ) There is general consensus that the functional form of the size distribution is lognormal, ( 51 ) meaning that most of the particles formed are from the smaller end of the range of sizes produced. Where geometric standard deviations (GSDs) for CSP distributions were determined, they were all 2.0 or less, indicating a relatively narrow distribution.…”

Study of cigarette smoke aerosol using time of flight mass spectrometry

“…The conditions chosen for smoke aerosol generation in the present work are broadly based on earlier studies performed using off-line techniques [5,6]. The reported methods employed in these cases were a combination of radiolabeled materials, followed by size separation of the labeled smoke aerosol by a spiral centrifuge in one case and use of a cascade impactor in the other case.…”

“…The reported methods employed in these cases were a combination of radiolabeled materials, followed by size separation of the labeled smoke aerosol by a spiral centrifuge in one case and use of a cascade impactor in the other case. In these reported measurements [5,6], the collected samples were subsequently analyzed using gas chromatographic techniques. Present study is based on direct measurements for different organic and inorganic species presents, as opposed to off-line studies such as reference [5] involving specific radioactivity for different cigarette ingredients and in case of reference [6], concerning distribution of five different organic components in smoke after extraction.…”